Roland Illig <roland.illig%gmx.de@localhost> writes:
On 04.05.2020 20:54, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
I'm really, really annoyed by this attitude. We still have month old
packages failing due to check-portability.mk inflating the already huge
number of broken packages due to the OpenSSL fiasco. Can we please stop
adding more unncessary breakage and get the numbers down into a sensible
range for at least one mainstream platform? The current signal-to-noise
ratio hides too many problems already.
I agree that having the stricter shell portability check generates more
packages that fail to build. The point is that before, they succeeded
to build but under wrong assumptions. I prefer to have binary packages
without these easy-to-detect bugs.
I think Joerg's point is that the stricter shell checks should have been
done in a way that was basically
variable to opt in
bulk build while opted in to fix all the new issues
then, make it default
and I also think this would be preferable. While I share your concern
about undefined and buggy behavior, we've been living with it, and
pkgsrc users are not served by withdrawing packages - only by fixing the
bugs.